From archora-research
Generates devil's advocate critiques from methodological, theoretical, and practical perspectives to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/archora-research:counterargumentThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
| Perspective | Icon | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Methodological | 🔬 | Study design, measurement validity, statistical approach, reproducibility |
| Theoretical | 📚 | Conceptual framework, alternative explanations, literature gaps |
| Practical | ⚙️ | Feasibility, generalizability, real-world applicability, ethical concerns |
# ⚔️ Counterargument Analysis
## Summary
[2–3 sentences: overall assessment of the research's vulnerability to critique]
## Counterarguments
### 📚 Theoretical Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
**Challenged Claim:** [Exact claim being challenged]
**Critique:** [Specific, evidence-grounded critique. Reference timescales, measurement limits,
alternative frameworks, or published contradictory evidence where possible.]
**Rebuttal Strategy:** [Concrete suggestion: what experiment, analysis, or argument would
address this critique]
---
### 🔬 Methodological Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
...
Weak: "The sample size might be too small."
Strong: "The proposed sample of n=15 animals achieves 80% power only for effect sizes of η²≥0.25. Given the typical effect sizes in STDP studies (η²=0.10–0.15, e.g., Bi & Poo 1998), this is underpowered. A power analysis targeting η²=0.12 would require n=38 per condition."
npx claudepluginhub richard-kim-79/archora-skillsCritically evaluates research papers on methodology, claims-evidence alignment, and significance. Activates when asked to critique, review, or analyze a study.
Provides rigorous peer review and devil's-advocate rebuttal of research documents in the persona of 'Reviewer 2'.
Simulates a full international journal peer review process with 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer + Devil's Advocate). Supports multiple modes: full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration.